Pasadena’s pit bull fight should result in spay and neuter law: Editorial

Everyone’s wrong about pit bulls. Everyone who has, so to speak, a dog in the fight, that is. Let’s instead stick to objective facts.

Passionate advocates on both sides of the argument of whether to ban the breed are too close to either a cute pup or some treasured, questionable statistics to be objective.

Really, they have temporarily taken leave of their senses, both the pit-bull proponents and the safety advocates concerned about deadly attacks. This fact is not helping in the ongoing effort of Southern California cities to decide how to deal with the question of whether the breed of dog, and breeds close to it, and mixed-breed pits, are too dangerous for residents.

Some determined proponents of pit bulls as pets feel the need to put quotation marks around the word “attacks” by the breed. What else would you call it when, as happened last May in the High Desert town of Littlerock, a woman out for a morning walk was attacked and killed by four pit bulls?

Some determined opponents say that every pit bull is a demon dog, programed to kill other canines and humans as well. But the vast majority attack nothing and no one, and even sleep in the beds of their masters and mistresses, just like some happy-go-lucky golden retriever.

The heated argument currently goes on in Pasadena, where Councilman Steve Madison, after reports of deaths and maulings by pit bulls, had tried to get pits entirely banned within city limits. Getting little support, he recently switched to an effort to ensure all pit bulls were spayed or neutered. After an ongoing study period, he may find council support to instead require that all breeds in the city be spayed or neutered, as is required in the city of Los Angeles.

But during a dramatic City Council meeting this week, featuring more than 50 speakers, most of them pit-bull advocates, the flawed arguments of both sides were very much on view.

The objective fact is that it is certainly not nuts, or unprecedented, to ban pits, a rather generic term for a number of dogs that were originally bred in 19th-century England for fighting other dogs or for “bull-baiting” and similarly violent displays. Pit bull terriers are currently entirely banned in all of England and Wales. Denver bans pit bulls, and San Bernardino and Riverside counties require their sterilization.

But the statistics of advocates for an outright ban can be very misleading, since all kinds of dogs can and do bite, and since radically different national statistics on how many pits are involved in fatalities are available. Studies depend greatly on subjective IDs of breeds, which many people simply get wrong.

Advertisement

Many speakers Monday not only objected to the suggestion of a ban, though. They even object to mandatory spay and neuter, as L.A. requires of all breeds for the very good reason that unaltered male dogs are demonstrably more likely to be aggressive. Plus the Pasadena Humane Society shelter is filled with dozens of pits and pit mixes that won’t be adopted, and are instead euthanized by the hundreds, because of too many puppies out there. One speaker called the idea a prejudice against the poor, who she said can’t afford the procedure.

This is sheer nonsense. Volunteer groups subsidize spaying and neutering. Caring for a dog requires an investment in it. Pasadena should pass an ordinance requiring all dogs be spayed and neutered for both public safety and to reduce overpopulation. And owners should take responsibility to train and restrain their dogs.